Australia has one of the highest CO2e emissions per capita in the world. While some Australians are against cap-and-trade and want to stick to the current federal goal of a 5% reduction by 2020, many businesses view a set price on carbon as a way to make educated long-term investment plans.  By creating an industrial market for carbon credits and taking advantage of “low-hanging fruit,” including the country’s reliance on coal-powered plants and opportunities for developing renewable energy systems, experts say that Australia could easily reduce its carbon emissions by 15 to 25% on the same timeline. Many citizens support the introduction of policies to make this change because the country has a lot to lose in the face of what climate change could bring: altered coastlines, poor growing seasons and worse bushfires.
If Australia goes in the direction of definitive climate change policy, it could have a corporate advantage in the future; environmental efficiency often means increased economic efficiency, and therefore better products and higher profits.  With rumors that the climate talks due in Mexico in a few months won’t bring the much-needed international agreement on how to address global warming, maybe it is time for individual countries to step up and curb their inefficient habits. If Australia creates a price for carbon, do you think the US should follow suit?

Globally, the first six months of 2010 have been declared the hottest on record. Greenland lost a glacier the size of Manhattan. Russia is suffering the worst drought since they began taking records 130 years ago.  China has too much rain and millions are suffering from flooding. On the other side of the world, Chile has experienced record cold temperatures.

La Nina weather pattern may explain some of this crazy weather.  But how do you explain the broken record?  For the past decade most countries around the world admitted that the climate change we are experiencing is a result of excessive greenhouse gas created by man. Most of them have started to cut back their emissions.

The question remains; what sort of weather-related catastrophe has to happen before the U.S. takes action?

If you read our blog on a regular basis you’ve seen us write about the “Carrot and the Stick” in relation to greenhouse gas (GHG) regulation from the government. We saw the demise of the senate bill to address GHGs through a cap-and-reduce (a.k.a., cap-and-trade or cap-and-tax) program, most recently known as the American Power Act. When it comes to difficult decisions, congress does not have the ability to lead. That is fine. As someone I know well says, “you have to lead, follow or get out of the way.” Congress just got out of the way. We predict they will follow next.

For the past several years while congress has failed to pass comprehensive legislation to combat climate change, the EPA has been pushing carbon reduction every step of the way. First, they had GHGs classified as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. At the start of 2010 they asked big emitters to start measuring their CO2e levels. Along the way the EPA has even withstood legal questions about their ability to regulate GHGs.  Now that lawmakers have failed to act do you think the EPA will sit back and do nothing?

The older members of congress remember that back in 1991 cap and trade was originally proposed by Republicans as a way to stop the EPA from directly regulating acid rain-producing SOx and NOx. (That first experiment in cap and reduce worked so well that the Europeans adopted a similar system to abide by the Kyoto Protocol.) History has a way of repeating it’s self and we predict that within the next six months the EPA will introduce a laundry list of GHG regulations that will have even the staunchest climate denier pleading for a cap-and-reduce bill.

So if you think cap-and-reduce legislation is dead, think again.  There is a sleeping giant that is about to wake up.

As Congress struggles to pass a bill that can comprehensively address climate change, the federal government is already taking steps to have the main contributors to GHG emissions become conscious of this fact and start reducing.
The government itself is one of the largest CO2e emitters in our country, and with our looming national debt, any effort to reduce energy consumption – and therefore cost – is worthwhile.  Recently, Energy Secretary Steven Chu mandated the installation of light-colored roofs on all Department of Energy offices, a decision that can reduce heating and cooling costs by up to 70% per building. In line with President Obama’s pledge to reduce the government’s direct GHG emissions by 28% by 2020, federal agencies are looking to reduce company vehicle travel distances and locate new buildings near public transit centers.
Companies that work with the government are also facing incentives to cut back on emissions.  The General Services Administration will begin giving preference to corporations that monitor and try to reduce their CO2e emissions when granting federal contracts. This is similar to Walmart’s new policy of vetting companies in their supply chain based on emissions tracking.
If enough key players in our economy decide that the environment should be a consideration before they sign a contract, the pressure will be off Congress to decide on a feasible carbon monitoring system.

China, whose 1.34 billion population is over four times that of the United States’, recently passed the US as the country with the highest energy demand. A portion of this is due to the economic recession hitting the US harder than most other countries. As American CO2e emissions have experienced the largest drop since recording started in the 1950’s, demand for energy on a whole has decreased with economic hardship.
But even if US emissions and energy use begin to increase once the economy gets better, China is likely to hold onto its lead. This is because China’s average standard of living has improved by leaps and bounds.  Even though per capita energy demand and emissions are significantly less than other developed countries, the sheer magnitude of population increases – and growing percentage of the population who can access electricity and own cars – means that China will continue to have a huge impact on the energy market.
Luckily, the country is also one of the largest investors in alternative energy; China has some of the strictest regulations on technology standards and leads the world in wind turbine production.  Although China and almost every other country put economic stability before environmental protection, maybe China’s dedication to regulating GHG emissions as they improve technology can mitigate global warming, despite their climbing consumption of fossil fuels.

When the America Power Act was first introduced in mid-May by Senators Kerry and Lieberman, it was a serious bill.  It tackled offshore drilling, clean coal technology, voluntary carbon markets, nuclear energy, and a comprehensive cap and trade system for CO2e emissions. But with support of anything climate change related waning in Congress, Kerry and Lieberman have issued a new draft of the bill.

The main focus is placing regulations on utility companies.  Since electricity generation is responsible for over 30% of America’s emissions, and the US is one of the top GHG emitters in the world, it is logical to create a cap and trade system for this industry over any other. But even with the shock of the BP oil spill still reverberating in our public conscious and economy and the potential promise of thousands of “green-collar jobs” that could appear from domestic investment in alternative energy, there is doubt as to whether even this scaled-back bill may pass. If the re-tooled bill does pass, carbon credit permitting would make utility companies reduce emissions by 17% by 2020, with the possibility for companies to invest in carbon sequestration project to further offset emissions. With previous promises from President Obama to make climate change a priority, as well as the tension-filled climate talks to take place in Mexico in November, the US needs to take some sort of legislative action to mitigate global warming, and fast.

Since the Kyoto Protocol, there has been a political battle over which nations should put the most effort into reducing emissions.  Some argue that it the lowest marginal cost for reducing pollution can be found in developing nations, where environmentally-friendly technology could be implemented as basic infrastructure is put in place for the first time.  On the other hand, these developing countries argue, the vast majority of emissions that are causing global warming stem from the cheap industrial growth that developed nations took advantage of in the past, and it is therefore the responsibility of the wealthiest nations to reform.
A recent study by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency shows that as developing countries are able to improve living conditions for their citizens, the CO2e emissions per capita increases. But even as the standard of living increases in India, China and countries in Africa, population growth remains positive and high, which means huge jumps in total GHG emissions from these countries whose citizens had limited access to fossil fuel use a few decades ago.  Scientists estimate that there needs to be a 85% emissions cut worldwide by 2050 to stave off the worst climate change effects for sure.  But by then, the global population will probably exceed 9 billion, and almost every government is acting to preserve economic, not environmental, stability.
So what is the solution? Exporting clean technology to developing countries? Having industrialized nations bite the bullet and switch to alternative energy? Maybe the Aztecan apocalypse for 2012 is in reference to a necessary change in lifestyles across the globe.

The eastern half of the country can breathe easier; President Obama proposed new air-quality rules under a federal court order.  These regulations will reduce soot and smog emissions from coal-fired power plants through the installation of scrubbers and other technologies, and replace faulty rules passed by President Bush that were based on flawed scientific conclusions. Although it is expected to cost $2.8 billion annually, these new rules will save an estimated $120 billion in health costs every year.
The EU is also passing laws to clean its air.  By 2016, all major polluters in the EU will have to limit their emissions of sulfur dioxide, dust and nitrogen oxides, while power plants relying on coal or oil have until 2020 to comply (or, as a previous blog mentioned, these power plants do not have to change anything as long as they will be shut down by 2023).
So will this wave of stringent air pollution regulations lead to a comprehensive federal management system of greenhouse gas emissions? With the EPA starting to crack down on industrial emissions and State Implementation Plans under the Clean Air Act, maybe regulations of carbon emissions is (hopefully) not too far off.

China has acted with an “iron hand” towards climate change.  As the largest inventor of wind turbines, the country has some of the most stringent energy campaigns and technology standards.  The nation’s goals include reducing carbon emissions per unit economic output by 40 to 45% by 2020, and a main way of reaching this goal has been cutting fossil fuels out of energy production.  Already, coal-fired power plants in China are more energy efficient than those in the US, and the country has shut down over one thousand in the last three years to make room for new power technology.  Also, China has ordered the shut-down of other inefficient industry factories, such as the Guangshou Steel mill which employs thousands of workers.
Despite these efforts, China is projected to soon emit over a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gases. Raising emissions levels are due to population growth and higher demand for a Westernized lifestyle, which includes bigger cars and better apartments.
The Chinese government has tried to mitigate emissions from the “low-hanging fruit:” namely, industrial sources.  But it is much harder to effect change on an individual level. The emissions from Chinese citizens are still less than 50% of emissions from an average American’s lifestyle. Both countries, as well as other global leaders in population size, economy and technology, need to control the environmental impacts of their industries and their people.

Many Americans are still distrustful of the science behind global warming.  The majority of this skepticism originates from scandals in the presentation of information.  For example, Al Gore aimed for shock value with “An Inconvenient Truth,” but news of his high carbon emissions associated with air travel for the documentary undercut his message in the eyes of the public.

And now, independent researchers have uncovered numerous false statements in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report.  While the conclusions of the report remain valid, the Dutch agency that reviewed the 3,000-page document reports that some of the supporting facts were miscalculated, misconstrued or even fabricated.  Examples include claims that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 and 75 million to 250 million Africans face threats on clean water supplies due to global warming.  More accurate scientific estimates place glacial melt occurring closer to 2350 and between 90 million and 220 million Africans at risk for severe water shortages.

As we’ve blogged about before, a growing number of people in the US and worldwide are starting to view climate change as a much less important issue than in past years, and fewer believe the science behind climate change.  Some climate change supporters have relied on sensationalism instead of sure facts, an unfortunate step away from the scientific standard of rationalism and peer revision.